Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank sponsors of this legislation. I have had the pleasure of working with both Senators from Missouri. Both Senators made outstanding statements in support of this legislation. In addition, Senator Dorgan--we appreciate his support for this legislation. It has bipartisan support. We have a lot of cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. It is my hope that the Senate will pass the identical bill that the House passed and that we will send it to the President. Also, I have a statement from the administration. The Clinton administration issued a statement of administration policy on April 10, 1997, which states, ``The President made it clear that he does not support assisted suicide. The administration, therefore, does not oppose enactment of H.R. 1003.'' Mr. President, there is no reason for us to amend this legislation. There is no reason for us to delay this legislation. Let's pass this legislation and send a message to Dr. Kevorkian and others that Federal funding will not be tolerated and that it will not be legal to assist in assisted suicide. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation pending before us, a bill to prohibit Federal funds being used to assist in suicides. I wish to compliment my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, and also my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for their leadership. I am happy to cosponsor this legislation. I think it is important that we pass this legislation today. I am pleased that the House passed it overwhelmingly by a vote of 398 to 16. It is not often that we find such an overwhelming vote. Frankly, I can't see how anyone would vote against this legislation. This legislation makes sense. It is needed. Some may ask, ``Why is it needed?" You might be aware of the fact that the Supreme Court held hearings earlier this year on whether or not there is a legal right for assisted suicide. I have read the Constitution many times. I don't find that right in there. That doesn't mean the Supreme Court might not, nor does it mean that some other judge might say yes, you have a constitutional right for assisted suicide, and someone else say yes, that is a constitutional right; therefore, it should be covered by Medicare or Medicaid, and, therefore, be paid for by the Federal Government. So maybe this is a preemptive strike. It is unfortunate to think it might even be needed. But it is needed. We want to make sure it doesn't happen. We want to make sure that we don't have more Dr. Kevorkians running around the country saying, ``You have a legal right to kill yourself, and therefore, we will help you; and, oh, yes, we want the taxpayers to pay for it.'' We don't want the taxpayers to pay for it. We want to send a signal to Dr. Kevorkian that we don't agree with him. Dr. Kevorkian made a statement which was reported in the New York Times on April 5 talking about the fact that he publicly burned a cease and desist order from the State. He said, ``If you want to stop something, pass a law.'' That is what we are trying to do today. We are trying to make it very clear that the Congress of the United States overwhelmingly believes that you should not use Federal funds to assist in something like suicides, something that is as deadly as suicide. This would clarify the law. If assisted suicide is legalized by the Supreme Court, or in any individual State, all it would take is one district court judge to rule that assisted suicide fits under the Medicare statute's guidelines. On January 8, 1997, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases in which the Federal courts of appeals have declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Mr. President I think we want to send a very clear signal. I might mention that this Congress has already passed a ban. In 1995, I offered legislation banning the use of Medicaid and Medicare funds for assisted suicide in the balanced budget amendment which passed this Congress. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the legislation. But he didn't veto the legislation because of this. An amicus brief, filed by the American Medical Association, to the Supreme Court on November 12, 1996, contends that assisted suicide ``will create profound danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed depression and inadequately treated pain for whom assisted suicide rather than good palliative care could become the norm. At greatest risk would be those with the least access to palliative care--the poor, the elderly, and members of minority groups.'' Acting Solicitor Gen. Walter Dellinger recently said in opposing the idea of a right to assisted suicide, ``The systemic dangers are dramatic . . . the least costly treatment for any illness is lethal medication.'' That is reported in the New York Times on January 9 of this year. We are a nation built on the principle that human life is sacred, to be honored and cherished. As public servants, we deal with issues that affect the lives of people every day. Caring for people is the underlying aspect of nearly every piece of legislation dealt with in this Senate. Dr. Joanne Lynn, board member of the American Geriatrics Society, and director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University, said, ``No one needs to be alone or in pain or beg a doctor to put an end to misery. Good care is possible.'' Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, while dying last November, took the time to write the Supreme Court on assisted suicide, saying, There can be no such thing as a ``right to assisted suicide'' because there can be no legal and moral order which tolerates the killing of innocent human life, even if the agent of death is self-administered. Creating a new ``right'' to assisted suicide will endanger society and send a false signal that a less than ``perfect'' life is not worth living. There are a lot of groups and a lot of individuals who have endorsed this legislation. The American Medical Association said, The power to assist in intentionally taking the life of a patient is antithetical to the central mission of healing that guides physicians. The AMA continues to stand by its ethical principle that physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer and that physicians must instead aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. That was signed by John Seward, executive vice president of the AMA, on April 15. Mr. President, this legislation is endorsed by not only the American Medical Association but also the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Geriatrics Society, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Free Congress, National Right to Life, Physicians for Compassionate Care, and the Traditional Values Coalition. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that letters be printed in the Record at this point from the Catholic Health Association and also the Christian Coalition in support of this legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 16. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there then be a period of morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Campbell, 10 minutes; Senator Hutchinson, 10 minutes; Senators McConnell and Graham, 30 minutes each; Senator Conrad, 10 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 15 minutes; and, Senator Dorgan, 1 hour.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton administration's highly questionable fundraising activities is based upon a shocking misinterpretation of the history, purpose, and requirements of the independent counsel law. Ms. Reno states that the act ``does not permit'' invoking the independent counsel provisions unless there is ``specific and credible evidence that a crime may have been committed by'' a person covered by the law. In fact, the law requires that it be invoked whenever there is ``information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate'' whether any person covered by the law may have violated Federal law. In short, even though General Reno acknowledges that there are ``sufficient grounds to investigate,'' and even though that investigation is ongoing as I speak, she insists on controlling the investigation herself. There remains no conceivable room for doubt that the Clinton administration, the Clinton-Gore campaign, and the Democratic National Committee engaged in fundraising practices that must be investigated. Virtually every editorial page in the Nation, from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, have demanded an investigation. Indeed, even the highest officials at the DNC have acknowledged that their practices were questionable and have agreed to return over $3 million in contributions from foreign nationals, persons who gave contributions in the names of others, and contributions that may have come from foreign governments. And serious questions exist as to the use of Government property to solicit contributions and reward contributors. The Vice President has admitted that he made numerous telephone calls from his official office using a Clinton-Gore campaign card to raise funds for the purpose of furthering the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. Several of the recipients of those calls said that they felt pressured to contribute because they had ongoing business with the Government. Other telephone call recipients perceived these calls as constituting a shakedown. When a charge was recently aired that a prominent Member of Congress had pressured a potential contributor, a Federal grand jury investigation was launched within days of the allegation. Shouldn't the Vice President, or the President, who had pointedly not denied making fundraising calls from his office, be investigated as well? The purpose of the independent counsel law is to entrust the investigation of these matters to someone who is not a subordinate of the official or officials being investigated. Yet General Reno refuses to invoke the independent counsel law until she is satisfied that laws have, in fact, been broken. That decision is not hers to make. That interpretation stands the law on its head. It is impossible to defend the proposition, as the Attorney General attempts to do, that covered persons are not implicated in the investigation that she is presently conducting and which should be conducted by an independent person. Documents released by the White House prove conclusively that the fundraising by the President's reelection campaign and by the DNC was run, on a day-to-day, hands-on basis by the President, himself, and his direct subordinate, Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. The DNC took orders directly from the President through Mr. Ickes. And the President and the Vice President and the First Lady were directly and substantially involved in all fundraising activities by the Clinton-Gore campaign and by the DNC, which was raising not soft money, but money that was raised for the purpose and used directly to fuel the President's reelection drive. The Attorney General seems to feel that some of the laws implicated by these practices may not or should not be prosecuted. But that prosecutorial decision must not be made by someone who owes her position in Government to the official who may have possibly violated those laws. It does not answer this concern for the Attorney General to state that she is relying on career officials in the Department of Justice. As long as they are reporting to her, they are reporting to the President. She may not independently investigate the conduct of President Clinton any more than Attorney General Mitchell could investigate President Nixon or Attorney General Meese could investigate President Reagan. I am not prejudging the results of the investigation which must be conducted into these matters. But I know that the practices that must be investigated may have violated Federal criminal laws, and that those violations may have been encouraged, inspired, directed, or condoned by the President or his immediate subordinates. The people of the United States are entitled to a prompt, full, fair, and independent investigation of these matters, and that investigation cannot be controlled by a person who serves at the pleasure of the President.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first, I wish to compliment and congratulate my colleague from Minnesota for an outstanding statement on really the need for tax relief. Today is tax day. Today is the day that thousands of Americans will be running to the post office trying to make sure they get their taxes filed on time. In my household, it is not a pleasant time. My wife and I have been married 28-plus years, and this is always the time where we are scrambling around to make sure we find all the charitable contributions, make sure we get all the 1099's, make sure we get all the forms together, and it is not pleasant, it is not easy, it is not something we look forward to. I heard my friend and colleague from Arkansas say he does not mind one bit the amount of money he pays in taxes. I will say, as a taxpayer, I mind. I will say a lot of taxes are unfair and a lot of taxes are very counterproductive to individual freedom. As a matter of fact, a lot of taxes actually suffocate an individual's ability to expand, to grow, to work for yourself, to take care of your family. I will give you a couple of examples and one of the reasons why this Senator favors very much balancing the budget but also, likewise, cutting taxes for families, particularly working families, making some changes in estate taxes as outlined by my colleague, Senator Grams, and making some changes in capital gains. Let's touch on a couple of examples. I heard my colleague from Arkansas say, ``Well, they're cutting taxes for the wealthy.'' You do not have to be very wealthy, and all of a sudden you are working for the Government more than you are working for yourself. If you are a self-employed individual and you have a company, maybe you have a painting service or lawn service--I used to have a janitor service when I was in college--if you are self-employed, single, and you have taxable income at $25,000, most people would not categorize you as rich. But according to Government sources, you must be, because the Government wants half of everything you make. If a person has a taxable income at $25,000, their marginal income tax bracket is 28 percent Federal income tax. That individual must also pay Social Security taxes; if self-employed, he pays 15.3 percent. Add that to the 28, and that is 43.3 percent, and that is before they pay any State income tax. In my State that is about 7 percent. That means that person, that individual with taxable income of $25,000 pays 28 percent Federal income tax, 15.3 percent FICA tax, unemployment tax, Social Security, Medicare tax. You add the two together and get 43.3, add State income tax and, bingo, that person is taxed at over 50 percent, and any additional dollar they make is going to Government. I think that is too high. I do not think Government is entitled to take over half of what they make. They are the ones creating the work. They are the ones doing the job. They are the ones putting in the labor, the sweat, the equity, the homework, the education necessary to create the job, create the service, and Government is coming in saying they want half of it. If it is a couple and their taxable income is $40,000, they are in the same 50-percent tax bracket. I think that is too high. I think estate taxes are high. My colleague said that is cutting taxes for the wealthy. You can have a taxable estate of $1 million, and Uncle Sam says they want 39 percent. Why in the world, if a person accumulates a couple of restaurants, maybe two or three restaurants, and they happen to have an estate value of $1.6 million--we have a $600,000 exemption, so he has two or three restaurants and their value is worth, say, $2 million, why should Uncle Sam say it wants 40 percent of it? What did Uncle Sam do to generate those businesses? Why should it be entitled to 40 percent? Or if you have a taxable estate of $3 million, Uncle Sam wants 55 percent of that estate. Again, it could be a farm, ranch, machine job, it could be a restaurant, it could be any type of business. Why should the Government come in and say, ``We want over half''? What did Government do to create those jobs, that business? I disagree. That tax is unfair. It needs to be changed. I think it is counterproductive. I do not think it raises money. I think when you get into marginal rates, over half of the people find ways to avoid taxes. They will come up with schemes. They will come up with scams. They will do different scams. They do not want the Government to get over half of what they make. They work to get it down. We should change rates. When we change rates, my colleague from Minnesota mentioned, when we lower that tax on transactions, there are more transactions, and the Government makes more money. A lot of people are sitting on a lot of transactions. They would like to sell this land for that, and buy this land, or sell this stock and buy that stock, but they do not want to if Uncle Sam says, ``We want 28 percent for that exchange.'' If you reduce the tax on that exchange, capital gains, you will have a lot more trading, a lot more buying and selling, and Government will make money on the transactions. The Government does not make money if people sit on the assets and do not trade the assets. The point is, we can reduce the rates and generate more money for the Federal Government, and, I think, create a healthier, more stable economy. So, Madam President, I make this statement urging my colleagues that this is the year that we can balance the budget and provide tax relief for American families. It should be a done deal. President Clinton campaigned for tax relief in 1992. He did not deliver. Actually he delivered just the opposite. In 1993, he passed the largest tax increase in history. In 1996, President Clinton campaigned for tax relief. Bob Dole, the Republican candidate, campaigned for tax relief. Both said they favored a $500-tax-credit per child. You would think that would be a done deal. We passed that last year in the last Congress. President Clinton, unfortunately, vetoed it. You think it would be a done deal and now it would happen. I am not so sure everybody on the other side is willing to do that. Hopefully the President will. I want to work with the President. I want it to become law. I do not have an interest in passing a tax bill just to have it vetoed. I want to pass a tax relief package this year that includes relief for American working families, that includes a reduction in capital gains, that includes estate tax relief, that includes incentives to save, IRAs, saving for retirement and education, I want to pass that and have it become law. We look forward to working with the President and other Members in this body to pass a bipartisan package that can actually reduce taxpayers' taxes this year. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Gordon Smith] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who are wishing to speak. At 1 p.m. we hope to reach an agreement to begin consideration of H.R. 1003, the so-called assisted suicide legislation. This is legislation that would ban Federal funding of assisted suicide. If an agreement is reached, it would allow for 3 hours of debate on that bill. Therefore, Senators can expect a rollcall vote on Wednesday mid to late afternoon. All Senators will be notified accordingly when the vote is scheduled.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record immediately following my statement a copy of this legislation and, in addition to the legislation, a letter from the Small Business Legislative Council and a letter from the National Restaurant Association endorsing the bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to summarize again for the benefit of my colleagues, effective July 1, if we do not change this current--I started to say ``law,'' but this is not a law. The IRS came up with a regulation. We passed a law. Congress passed a law that says we want to encourage electronic fund transfers of payroll taxes. A good idea. It makes sense. It will work for a lot of people. IRS, to implement this, and maybe with some direction of Congress-- Congress said put most of the taxpayers in. The IRS did so, and then they came up with a 10-percent penalty. That is a big inducement, encouragement. Congress did not put on the 10-percent penalty; the IRS did--it puts a gun to the taxpayer's head--and then said, ``You have to do this.'' Then they said, ``This is not too much of a challenge for bigger employers.'' As a matter of fact, the current requirement, the threshold is $47 million of payroll taxes. If you have payroll taxes of $47 million, that is a big operation. And they are doing that now. That actually applies to 1,500 taxpayers in the country today. The next threshold level drops from $47 million to $50,000. Now you are talking about a lot of companies. You are talking about a lot of businesses. You do not have to be very big to have payroll taxes of $50,000. You might have total payroll of a quarter of a million or $300,000. That deadline is July 1. It was to be January 1. We postponed it for 6 months. The legislation we have introduced today, it phases down the $47 million threshold to $30 million, to $10 million, to $5 million, and says, ``If you have payroll taxes of less than $5 million, you do not have to do this. You can still do it, you still have the option to do it.'' I met with some representatives from the IRS. They said, ``We are concerned, if we pass this legislation, a lot of people might not get into the system. Maybe that would not be fair for the people already in the system.'' I said I want them to have the option. In our legislation, we want to encourage people to move into the electronic fund transfer. We think that would be good. A lot of people pay their home notes--I do that. When I pay my home mortgage, I do it by electronic fund transfer where you used to have the coupon system. I am happy with that. I think a lot of taxpayers will be happy paying payroll taxes this way, and we want this to be an option. We want to eliminate the 10-percent penalty for noncompliance, especially for small business. So that is what we have done. I ask unanimous consent Senator Thomas also be included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, to address the ever- recurring problem of Federal mandates on small business. Our bill will prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from forcing thousands of small businesses to deposit payroll taxes by electronic funds transfer under threat of penalty. In addition to Senator Breaux, I would like to thank several other Senators who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation, including Senator Mack, Senator Baucus, Senator D'Amato, Senator Bond, Senator DeWine, Senator Cochran, and Senator Enzi. Legislation enacted in 1993 to implement the North American Free- Trade Agreement directed the IRS to begin collecting a progressively larger percentage of payroll tax deposits from employers by electronic funds transfer, in lieu of the Federal tax deposit coupon system. Congress' intent was to simplify the tax deposit system and reduce paperwork for taxpayers, financial institutions, and the IRS. The Senate report accompanying this bill recommended that the implementation of this mandate not create hardships for small businesses, and that no small business should be required to purchase computers or gain access to any electronic equipment other than a touch-tone telephone. Further, the report urged Treasury to take into account the specific needs of small employers, including possible exemption for the very smallest businesses from the electronic deposit system. Unfortunately, the IRS has done little to mitigate the impact on small business. Instead, they sent notices to 1.2 million small businesses last summer stating that they must begin using the new electronic Federal tax payment System, or EFTPS, to make payroll tax deposits on January 1, 1997. Further, the IRS told these taxpayers that continued use of the Federal tax deposit coupon system would result in penalties equal to 10 percent of each deposit. The IRS targeted this mandate on any business which deposited more than $50,000 in payroll taxes in 1995. Prior to this time, the threshold for mandatory electronic deposits was $47 million. If the IRS is not stopped, Mr. President, the threshold will drop to $20,000 next year. The reaction from the small business community to this mandate last year was adverse and vocal, Mr. President. Fortunately, Congress acted to delay the EFTPS mandate until July 1, 1997. However, that date is quickly approaching, and thousands of small business owners are no more comfortable with the mandate now than they were last year. Business owners who have used the coupon system for years to diligently pay their taxes on time are incensed to learn that they can be forced from that system against their will. Some fear IRS access to their bank accounts, and others fear the additional costs which may arise if their bank begins charging fees for these transactions. Finally, many small businesses are discovering that their current bank does not participate fully in the electronic transaction system. Mr. President, small business owners should not have a new tax deposit system forced down their throats without alternatives and without enough time or information to make an orderly transition to the new system. Further, they should not be forced to incur fees or other additional costs in order to pay their taxes. While I agree that many taxpayers will come to prefer an electronic deposit system, I do not believe such a change should be mandated under threat of penalty. If a small business prefers to use the coupon system and continues to pay their taxes on time, they should not be penalized for doing so. Mr. President, the legislation Senator Breaux and I are introducing today will phase in the requirement to pay depository taxes electronically in manageable increments and exempt most small businesses permanently. Under our bill, only businesses who annually deposit over $5 million in payroll taxes will ever be mandated to use the electronic deposit system. Further, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to encourage all business taxpayers to voluntarily participate in the electronic deposit system. Enactment of this legislation will free small business owners from yet another heavyhanded Federal mandate and preserve their right to pay their taxes in a manner which best suits their business needs. I encourage all Senators to join in this effort. Mr. President, again I wish to thank the Presiding Officer of the Senate at this time, the Senator from Wyoming, for cosponsoring this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record immediately following my statement a copy of this legislation and, in addition to the legislation, a letter from the Small Business Legislative Council and a letter from the National Restaurant Association endorsing the bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to summarize again for the benefit of my colleagues, effective July 1, if we do not change this current--I started to say ``law,'' but this is not a law. The IRS came up with a regulation. We passed a law. Congress passed a law that says we want to encourage electronic fund transfers of payroll taxes. A good idea. It makes sense. It will work for a lot of people. IRS, to implement this, and maybe with some direction of Congress-- Congress said put most of the taxpayers in. The IRS did so, and then they came up with a 10-percent penalty. That is a big inducement, encouragement. Congress did not put on the 10-percent penalty; the IRS did--it puts a gun to the taxpayer's head--and then said, ``You have to do this.'' Then they said, ``This is not too much of a challenge for bigger employers.'' As a matter of fact, the current requirement, the threshold is $47 million of payroll taxes. If you have payroll taxes of $47 million, that is a big operation. And they are doing that now. That actually applies to 1,500 taxpayers in the country today. The next threshold level drops from $47 million to $50,000. Now you are talking about a lot of companies. You are talking about a lot of businesses. You do not have to be very big to have payroll taxes of $50,000. You might have total payroll of a quarter of a million or $300,000. That deadline is July 1. It was to be January 1. We postponed it for 6 months. The legislation we have introduced today, it phases down the $47 million threshold to $30 million, to $10 million, to $5 million, and says, ``If you have payroll taxes of less than $5 million, you do not have to do this. You can still do it, you still have the option to do it.'' I met with some representatives from the IRS. They said, ``We are concerned, if we pass this legislation, a lot of people might not get into the system. Maybe that would not be fair for the people already in the system.'' I said I want them to have the option. In our legislation, we want to encourage people to move into the electronic fund transfer. We think that would be good. A lot of people pay their home notes--I do that. When I pay my home mortgage, I do it by electronic fund transfer where you used to have the coupon system. I am happy with that. I think a lot of taxpayers will be happy paying payroll taxes this way, and we want this to be an option. We want to eliminate the 10-percent penalty for noncompliance, especially for small business. So that is what we have done. I ask unanimous consent Senator Thomas also be included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, to address the ever- recurring problem of Federal mandates on small business. Our bill will prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from forcing thousands of small businesses to deposit payroll taxes by electronic funds transfer under threat of penalty. In addition to Senator Breaux, I would like to thank several other Senators who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation, including Senator Mack, Senator Baucus, Senator D'Amato, Senator Bond, Senator DeWine, Senator Cochran, and Senator Enzi. Legislation enacted in 1993 to implement the North American Free- Trade Agreement directed the IRS to begin collecting a progressively larger percentage of payroll tax deposits from employers by electronic funds transfer, in lieu of the Federal tax deposit coupon system. Congress' intent was to simplify the tax deposit system and reduce paperwork for taxpayers, financial institutions, and the IRS. The Senate report accompanying this bill recommended that the implementation of this mandate not create hardships for small businesses, and that no small business should be required to purchase computers or gain access to any electronic equipment other than a touch-tone telephone. Further, the report urged Treasury to take into account the specific needs of small employers, including possible exemption for the very smallest businesses from the electronic deposit system. Unfortunately, the IRS has done little to mitigate the impact on small business. Instead, they sent notices to 1.2 million small businesses last summer stating that they must begin using the new electronic Federal tax payment System, or EFTPS, to make payroll tax deposits on January 1, 1997. Further, the IRS told these taxpayers that continued use of the Federal tax deposit coupon system would result in penalties equal to 10 percent of each deposit. The IRS targeted this mandate on any business which deposited more than $50,000 in payroll taxes in 1995. Prior to this time, the threshold for mandatory electronic deposits was $47 million. If the IRS is not stopped, Mr. President, the threshold will drop to $20,000 next year. The reaction from the small business community to this mandate last year was adverse and vocal, Mr. President. Fortunately, Congress acted to delay the EFTPS mandate until July 1, 1997. However, that date is quickly approaching, and thousands of small business owners are no more comfortable with the mandate now than they were last year. Business owners who have used the coupon system for years to diligently pay their taxes on time are incensed to learn that they can be forced from that system against their will. Some fear IRS access to their bank accounts, and others fear the additional costs which may arise if their bank begins charging fees for these transactions. Finally, many small businesses are discovering that their current bank does not participate fully in the electronic transaction system. Mr. President, small business owners should not have a new tax deposit system forced down their throats without alternatives and without enough time or information to make an orderly transition to the new system. Further, they should not be forced to incur fees or other additional costs in order to pay their taxes. While I agree that many taxpayers will come to prefer an electronic deposit system, I do not believe such a change should be mandated under threat of penalty. If a small business prefers to use the coupon system and continues to pay their taxes on time, they should not be penalized for doing so. Mr. President, the legislation Senator Breaux and I are introducing today will phase in the requirement to pay depository taxes electronically in manageable increments and exempt most small businesses permanently. Under our bill, only businesses who annually deposit over $5 million in payroll taxes will ever be mandated to use the electronic deposit system. Further, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to encourage all business taxpayers to voluntarily participate in the electronic deposit system. Enactment of this legislation will free small business owners from yet another heavyhanded Federal mandate and preserve their right to pay their taxes in a manner which best suits their business needs. I encourage all Senators to join in this effort. Mr. President, again I wish to thank the Presiding Officer of the Senate at this time, the Senator from Wyoming, for cosponsoring this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under rule XXII this cloture vote would occur on Wednesday morning. It is my hope cloture will be invoked on Tuesday and therefore this vote would not be necessary. However, if cloture is not invoked tomorrow, I will notify all Members as to when the second cloture vote can be expected. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum be waived.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a second cloture motion to the desk on the pending motion to proceed.